Hi guys,

it's great to watch all your attempts to modify, enhance, improve, texturize, render, raytrace etc the salt and pepper shakers, but - sorry to say this - none of you actually improved the product idea and product design.

Of course you can write books and render millions of images about the product - but the design idea behind the product will remain hidden.

In addition I have to mention that some of you didn't understand the concept:

01. people use more salt than pepper
02. thus the salt shaker MUST be the larger one
03. in addition, the two shakers differ in size and material
04. if you reduce the number of holes in the pepper shaker, you are going to repeat the same mistakes as gazillions of people before you.
The reason is quite obvious to a product or industrial designer who PLAYS and EXAMINES existing products BEFORE he starts his development.
I've researched that more than 70% of the people are not satisfied with the 'one hole' solution, because in many cases pepper grains differ in size, which results in the bare fact that one larger pepper grain (Murphy's Law) will congest the single hole, forcing the user to shake back and forth to get rid of the large grain (hoping this bug will strike the next user, but not him again).

Don't just look for the obvious - the solutions are in most cases hidden behind the scene and require a rock solid research and x-ray eyes.

BTW, you've focussed on the 'shell', the surface - which is only natural, because you are artists, illustrators, 3D freaks etc.

You won't guess how I mount the shakers on the caddy - this is the MOST important feature of this product, because once you come up with an outstanding product development and design you have to make sure it will look identical to the one people see in the advertising or on the shelf - which means the shakers will always have to be 'in line', so that the slanted top of the salt and pepper shaker always match.

In addition you have to develop a mechanism that prevents the shakers to drop off the caddy accidentially while being carried from the kitchen to the table and vice versa - without adding too many steps in the production process, and without destroying the smooth (visible) surface(s).

If you would have considered all variables, you would have discovered that the plastic or quartz caddy wouldn't be able to qualify for an elegant and STABLE solution (not to mention the manufacturing process and it's problems with these materials) - an extremely important factor for people who will spend up to US$ 100 for this massive, heavy weight design object...

Don't get me wrong - I am very impressed by the many solutions to present the object, be it in 2D or 3D. And I enjoy that you picked up the idea to show what's possible with different software packages. It's great to see you jumping in, because your interest in this object showed me that it is somewhat outstanding and meaningful for you. Which led me to the conclusion to contact a manufacturer to investigate the production possiblities, market acceptance, production costs, possible retail price and - of course - to finance the patents (plural because he has to patent it in every country where he wants to sell it...)

The manufacturer is excited, fascinate by the simple mounting solution. So am I. And while we were discussing the product, I added two other complimenting and matching objects to 'complete the product line' - now it's a complete set of design objects for the breakfast table.

Keep going!

jens